Advertisement
by Equalitria » Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:26 pm
by Annadelle » Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:34 pm
by Panait » Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:05 pm
by Communal Ecotopia » Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:24 pm
Hakio wrote:"So let me get this straight, you're attempting to abolish work time regulations such as forcing companies to give their employees money for overtime, so that these employees are worked like dogs for more hours just to get the extra compensation? If an employee wants to work for more hours than is normally expected, then our government mandates that those companies provide at least a 5% increase in their hourly profit for overtime. Now many conservatives will argue that doing this discourages companies from letting their employees work overtime because they would be forced to pay more and thus the employee earns less money. This is not the case in our country, due to the fact that our private organizations are highly regulated and partially owned by our socialist system. That's right, capitalism within socialism. Private companies are not allowed to deny an individual's right to work overtime for a 5% increase in wage minimum by our law. You do not get to dictate how our country runs our economics and hide it behind 'personal liberties'."
Sia Hedishi sits back down in her seat, irritated, and drinks some whiskey from her flask.
by Communal Ecotopia » Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:37 pm
Communal Ecotopia wrote:Hakio wrote:"So let me get this straight, you're attempting to abolish work time regulations such as forcing companies to give their employees money for overtime, so that these employees are worked like dogs for more hours just to get the extra compensation? If an employee wants to work for more hours than is normally expected, then our government mandates that those companies provide at least a 5% increase in their hourly profit for overtime. Now many conservatives will argue that doing this discourages companies from letting their employees work overtime because they would be forced to pay more and thus the employee earns less money. This is not the case in our country, due to the fact that our private organizations are highly regulated and partially owned by our socialist system. That's right, capitalism within socialism. Private companies are not allowed to deny an individual's right to work overtime for a 5% increase in wage minimum by our law. You do not get to dictate how our country runs our economics and hide it behind 'personal liberties'."
Sia Hedishi sits back down in her seat, irritated, and drinks some whiskey from her flask.
This is a huge concern of mine, as well. Could companies also mandate more than 40-hour weeks? At first, this like an awesome flex-time bill, but the extra hours concern, overtime or not, is a bill-killer until further notice. STRONGLY OPPOSED until clarification.
by Iron Felix » Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:04 am
by Louisistan » Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:50 am
by United Commonwealths of Lancaster » Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:09 am
by Equalitria » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:08 am
United Commonwealths of Lancaster wrote:The proposal, itself, conceded to the fact that national economies are diverse and cannot be universalized.
by Ardoki » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:22 am
by Louisistan » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:24 am
Equalitria wrote:United Commonwealths of Lancaster wrote:The proposal, itself, conceded to the fact that national economies are diverse and cannot be universalized.
If there is, in fact, a piece of GA legislation that harms individual liberty as it relates to workplace negotiations (a so-called "universal diktat"), then the bill should seek to repeal that legislation. Otherwise, it has no point.
by Equalitria » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:35 am
Louisistan wrote:Oh yes it does. Although there is currently no such legislation in place, several proposals to establish such a resolution have been debated in the past weeks. This is not seeking to repeal anything (It would be repeal otherwise and you cannot legislate in a repeal), it is seeking to block proposals who wish to establish such a universal diktat from passing. A preemptive strike, so to speak.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:23 am
Equalitria wrote:United Commonwealths of Lancaster wrote:The proposal, itself, conceded to the fact that national economies are diverse and cannot be universalized.
This is precisely it.
The bill purports to solve the issue of there being a "universal diktat," when there is no such thing in place. Nations are currently making their own policy. The GA bill in question is the very sort of "universal diktat" it purports to be acting against.
If there is, in fact, a piece of GA legislation that harms individual liberty as it relates to workplace negotiations (a so-called "universal diktat"), then the bill should seek to repeal that legislation. Otherwise, it has no point.
by Equalitria » Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:28 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Clearly the ambassador hasn't been here much recently, because a universal diktat is exactly what has been trying to pass, and this is designed to block it."
by Araraukar » Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:43 am
Ardoki wrote:I refuse to follow any legislation I don't like.
Equalitria wrote:Wouldn't it have been just as easy to craft a piece of legislation which says something to the effect of, "Each nation shall be free to manage its own labor relations as it sees fit"?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Equalitria » Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:54 am
Araraukar wrote:Please, do draft that, if it is so easy. I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:06 am
Equalitria wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Clearly the ambassador hasn't been here much recently, because a universal diktat is exactly what has been trying to pass, and this is designed to block it."
Please see my previous comment for a refutation of this point. The legislation can't have it both ways: it can't both forbid collective bargaining strategies (which its language seems to do) and claim that it exists to preserve each nation's right to determine these matters domestically. It can't both object to "universal diktats" and be one itself.
Wouldn't it have been just as easy to craft a piece of legislation which says something to the effect of, "Each nation shall be free to manage its own labor relations as it sees fit"? Why does all of the stuff about "the individual" even have to be in it, if what it's trying to do is preserve the right of nations' self-determination?
by Araraukar » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:06 am
Equalitria wrote:Again, the WA isn't currently dictating how nations handle labor relations.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Mousebumples » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:28 am
by Equalitria » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:33 am
by Hakio » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:36 am
Pandeeria wrote:Racism is almost as good as eating babies.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:59 am
Equalitria";p= wrote:If this legislation were merely a neutral affirmation of each nation's right to determine its own policies on work hours, we would wholeheartedly support it. But clause 3 of the bill holds every nation, in very strong terms, to removing working time policies which "reduce individual liberty." The language is vague enough, and the flavor of the bill so overtly oriented toward individual-business relations, that collectively-bargained working time restrictions could be put in the crosshairs, with no input from the affected nation itself.
by Gruenberg » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:14 am
Equalitria wrote:Wouldn't it have been just as easy to craft a piece of legislation which says something to the effect of, "Each nation shall be free to manage its own labor relations as it sees fit"?
Mousebumples wrote:As this resolution completely misses the well demonstrated fact that without employment regulation, employers (unsurprisingly) hold the power to enforce excessive work schedules, I have registered my vote Against this resolution, after a 1-5 vote against was tallied on our off-site forum.
While we understand the frustration that many members of this august Assembly have with recent 30-hour work week proposals, we don't feel that passing this resolution results in any net gains to the employee themselves. Any working time regulation, while it may reduce individual liberty on an abstract level, also serves to protect the worker from abuse by an employer forcing them to work more than they desire. As a result, we encourage our fellow Ambassdors to vote against as well.
Yours,
-image spam snipped-
by Equalitria » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:51 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Again, excellent attempt to obfuscate the true wording of the text, but no. The proposal seeks to remove legislation that ONLY seeks to reduce individual liberty. If such legislation has a compelling, practical need that isn't "oppression", it's legal. That includes the establishment of unions. The law does what the law says. Selective cherry-picking is not a good way to establish an effective opposition."
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:00 am
Equalitria wrote:And again, we insist that the wording is so vague that this provision could be interpreted in any number of ways. How does one establish that legislation "only" seeks to reduce individual liberty? Is the bar high or low? We wouldn't know, because the bill doesn't deal in any of these fine distinctions. And this might be okay, if the force of the wording were not so stringent. But a "mandate" is a very strong provision. Using it as a wrapper for vague language cannot help but invite tragedy.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement